authorities, interstate organizations, multinational corporations, celebrities, and nongovernmental organizations.15 If non-state diplomatic actors are considered, nongovernmental organizations unattached to any territory (such as sports organizations like the International Olympic Committee and international federations) and transnational corporations should be mentioned.16 The new model of international relations assumes that states remain their key actors but are not the only ones.17 Their role comparing to other actors diminishes owing to globalization and growing interdependencies.18 It is connected to the concept of conventional anomalies, which refers to non-state subjects with established diplomatic standing.19
The issue relates to polylateralism—a concept of the third dimension of diplomacy besides bilateral and multilateral. It embraces relations between states (including groups of states and intergovernmental organizations) and non-state subjects. According to this approach, non-state actors develop normal diplomatic relations that include reporting, communication, negotiation, and representation without mutual recognition of sovereignty.20 Such theoretical approaches allow including activities of international sports actors into the analysis of contemporary diplomacy. Accordingly, Geoffrey Wiseman credited International Olympic Committee as an actor of transnational civil society that works for nonprofit and supports legitimate sociopolitical causes across international borders and engages in diplomatic interactions.21
Considerations concerning contemporary diplomacy include a concept of new diplomacy that assumes states giving in to non-state actors owing to fragmentation of diplomatic institutions and the tendency that diplomacy is becoming more public and dependent on grassroots mobilization. New diplomacy assumes that in some spheres, official politics remains superior, while in others “new diplomats” compete with governments and compensate their inactivity.22 It also refers to sports diplomacy pursued beyond governments’ initiative and control, although in their interest. The diplomacy of transnational sports organizations is different since their actions do not compensate states’ passivity. It stems from their position and assets that make governments want to engage in diplomatic processes with them.
The concept of corporate diplomacy is also useful in explaining the phenomenon of sports diplomacy. It assumes that in the times of neoliberal globalization even though states remained the key subjects of international relations, the influence has shifted from the public to private and from the national to transnational spheres.23 This results in attaching greater significance to non-state actors operating in the international arena, particularly transnational corporations and non-state organizations.
In the contemporary, globalized world full of interdependencies traditional diplomacy understood as a tool of managing relations between states appears to be no longer sufficient, thus creating space for new diplomatic subjects. This changing nature of diplomacy allowed sports subjects to engage. It has also resulted in updating the repertoire of states’ activities and made it possible to engage non-state actors operating in their territories.
Sport and Public Diplomacy
There is a strong tendency to regard sports diplomacy as a subcategory of public diplomacy. It is described this way by states that pursue it in an institutionalized way. Many authors also refer to the use of sport within public diplomacy. According to Beata Ociepka, sport plays a vital role in public diplomacy since it may be used to build the international position of a state.24 This part includes a conceptualization of the role of sport, or sports diplomacy, within public diplomacy.
Public diplomacy developed because of the growing diversity and the intensification of international relations, which required greater specialization of diplomacy and development of its forms. Traditional diplomacy was then accompanied by special missions, conference and parliamentary diplomacy, the diplomacy of global problems, ecologic, cultural, social, military, and public diplomacy.25 Scientific considerations over public diplomacy were pursued since the 1960s in the United States, while the term is associated with a former diplomat Edmund Gullion who established the Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy, although for the first time the term was used already in the nineteenth century, but with a different meaning.26
James Pamment described public diplomacy as the communication of international actor’s policy to citizens of foreign countries. Such communication is pursued by ministries of foreign affairs, NGOs, and organizations of civil society through tools such as media releases, conferences, events, joint endeavors, and cultural exchange or international exchange of employees and students. They are based on the assumption that it is possible to affect relations between governments by engaging citizens whose opinions, values, activities, and interests might help to adjust another government’s attitude.27
A similar approach to public diplomacy can be observed in certain state documents. The US Department of State described it as informing the foreign public and winning support for the goals of American foreign policy.28 Its primary role is to build up trust between the engaged actors.29 In general, public diplomacy is defined as an activity directed outside, but some authors also distinguish its internal dimension connected to interactions with the domestic audience.30
Public diplomacy subjects include states (governments and their agencies), public subjects (parliaments and political parties), non-state subjects (NGOs, multinational and transnational corporations, individuals).31 Recognition of the role of non-state actors in the early 1990s marked a turning point in constructing the definition of public diplomacy.32 Today authors distinguish public diplomacy pursued by states and grassroots, people-to-people or nongovernmental public diplomacy.33 This division is defined by some authors as traditional public diplomacy versus new public diplomacy.
Traditional public diplomacy has been associated with relations between mutually hostile states whose governments attempted to affect other societies to change their governments’ attitudes toward them.34 The new public diplomacy connects to new challenges in international relations, particularly in the context of the growing number of threats in the twenty-first century. One-way communication directed at the external public was supplemented with “listening to others,” dialogue replaced monologue, short-term political goals were replaced by building long-term ties.35 Today cooperation is considered as the third layer of public diplomacy.36 As Nancy Snow illustrated it, traditional diplomacy was about relations between governments, traditional public diplomacy encompassed communication between government and a global audience, while new approaches to public diplomacy assume that both governments and private individuals and groups affect directly and indirectly views and opinions which influence the foreign policy of particular states.37 Stuart Murray had similar observations concerning sports diplomacy. According to him “sports diplomacy 2.0” (later Murray referred to it as simply “sports diplomacy”) comprises its newer type comparing to (traditional) sports diplomacy dominated by governments as a tool of pursuing diplomacy between states. It is more inclusive and besides governmental engagement includes activities of non-state actors and network partnerships typical for the twenty-first-century diplomacy. Such partnerships are comprised of traditional diplomats, corporations, NGOs, civil society organizations, and athletes who employ sport to shape the positive external perception of states.38 This way, the ministry of foreign affairs acts as a sports gatekeeper which facilitates, manages, and evaluates the overall sports diplomacy of a country.39 We can assume that both in the studies on diplomacy in general, and on sports diplomacy, increasing attention has been dedicated to non-state actors. This book, despite being focused on states, fits within this trend, and the sports diplomacy of non-state actors has been dedicated significant attention, even though apart from the chapter on international sports organizations such activities have been investigated in reference to states’ interests and policies.
“Nation branding” is another relevant term. It refers to treating nations as brands and is defined as a social and governance process aimed at building the state’s image and reputation on an international scale,
